PERSUASION SOCIAL INFLUENCE COMPLIANCE GAINING Robert H Gass
PERSUASION SOCIAL INFLUENCE & COMPLIANCE GAINING Robert H. Gass & John S. Seiter
Chapter 9 Message Structure and Organization 2
CICERO’S FIVE CANONS OF RHETORIC Dispositio – The effective, orderly arrangement of ideas Elocutio – Fluency, command of language Inventio – The invention and discovery of arguments Memoria – Memory and mnemonic devices Pronuntiato – Delivery factors such as pitch, rate, voice quality 3
IMPLICIT VS EXPLICIT CONCLUSIONS Is it better to spell things out for the listener? – The source may be perceived as more candid, forthright. – There is less risk the listener will reach the wrong conclusion. ▪ Or is it better to let the listener figure things out him/her self? – The source may seem less patronizing. – There is less risk of psychological reactance (e. g. , the perception the listener’s choice is being restricted) 4
EXPLICIT CONCLUSIONS ▪ Filling in the blanks – Persuasion is more participatory. – Self-generated conclusions – listeners draw their own conclusions. – less risk of psychological reactance. “I hope I’ve given you all the information you need…” Kakigori Studio/Shutterstock. com 5
EXPLICIT CONCLUSIONS ▪ Explicit conclusions generally work best: – Clear directions for receivers – Less risk of misunderstanding the conclusion “So what I’m asking you to do is…” Kakigori Studio/Shutterstock. com 6
GAIN FRAMED VS LOSS FRAMED MESSAGES ▪ Is it better to emphasize potential gains? ▪ Or is it better to emphasize potential losses? ▪ Gain-framed messages emphasize the positive. ▪ Loss-framed messages emphasize the negative. ▪ Low sensation seekers are ▪ Some people are risk averse more persuaded by gained- – They fear losing something framed messages they have over gaining something they don’t have ▪ Present-minded people respond more favorably to loss -framed messages 7
MESSAGE QUANTITY VS QUALITY ▪ The role of receiver involvement in the ELM: – For receivers with low involvement, it is the quantity of arguments that counts. – For receivers with high involvement, it is the quality of arguments that matters. When receivers have low involvement, quantity counts. When receivers have high involvement, quality counts. 8
EVIDENCE & PROOF ▪ Evidence usage almost always facilitates persuasion. – Evidence can increase speaker credibility. – High quality evidence may increase central processing. – The quantity of evidence may serve as a peripheral cue. – Evidence is most effective when receivers have high involvement. Castleski/Shutterstock. com 9
NARRATIVE VS STATISTICAL EVIDENCE ▪ People are, by nature, storytellers. ▪ People often don’t trust statistics ▪ Stories resonate with people Yet… But… ▪ Meta-analyses show statistics are more effective than narratives ▪ Anecdotal evidence is subject to the “hasty generalization” fallacy. “Let me tell you about my own experience…” “In 70% of such cases we find that…” As a persuader, use both narrative and statistical evidence 10
REPETITION & MERE EXPOSURE ▪ Mere Exposure Effect – Repeated exposure to a stimulus increases liking for the stimulus. – Repetition can increase awareness, learning, retention. – Wear-out can occur with overexposure. 11
ORDER EFFECTS ▪ Should you put your best arguments and evidence first, last, or in the middle? – Anticlimax order: the first information presented is easier to remember – Climax order: the last information presented is easier to remember – Pyramidal order: putting the best material in the middle ▪ Studies show putting your best material first or last is better than the middle. 12
ORDER EFFECTS ▪ People are better at remembering things that are earlier or later in a sequence, rather than in the middle. Word recall based on word order: cat apple ball tree square head house door box car king hammer milk fish book tape arrow flower key shoe 13
PRIMACY VS RECENCY EFFECTS ▪ When there are opposing sides, is it better to speak first or last? ▪ Primacy effect – It is better to speak first if the speeches are back to back. ▪ Recency effect – It is better to speak last if the speeches are separated in time. 14
Y R O E H T N O I T A Inoculation increases listeners’ resistance to L U C O N I a persuasive message Inoculation is based on a disease metaphor. – A small dose of the opposing position increases resistance to subsequent persuasion. – Inoculation is especially applicable to “cultural truisms. ” ▪ beliefs we take for granted – Inoculation is less effective on controversial topics. ▪ we expect alternative views 15
HOW INOCULATION WORKS ▪Threat is the motivational trigger. ▪Threat increases the receiver’s perceived vulnerability. ▪The listener then bolsters his/her defenses. ▪Inoculation protects beyond the original arguments used. ▪Inoculation increases immunity to new, novel arguments as well. 16
ONE VS TWO-SIDE MESSAGES ▪ Two-sided messages are almost always more persuasive. – A “refutational” approach is required. – The persuader must directly refute, not merely acknowledge, opposing arguments. ▪ Exceptions are when receivers: – already agree – are easily confused – are uneducated or unintelligent – will not be exposed to the opposing side at a later time Brian A Jackson/shutterstock. com 17
THE PERSUASION HIERARCHY The persuasion hierarchy: (from most to least persuasive): 1. two-sided, refutational messages 20% more effective overall than one-sided messages 20% more effective than two-sided, nonrefutational messages 3. two-sided, nonrefutational messages 18
FOREWARNING Forewarning increases resistance to influence attempts. receivers adopt a less receptive state of mind. § receivers may prepare defenses and rehearse counter-arguments. Forewarning’s effectiveness depends upon motivation and ability to disagree. ▪ Forewarning versus inoculation: § Forewarning merely warns a listener of an impending persuasive message (e. g. warning of persuasive intent). § Inoculation includes actual examples of the opposing arguments. 19
- Slides: 19